In the beginning of the year we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of social and passive activism. Stone, creator of Twitter, argued that in today’s society passive activism via social media is proactive. On the other hand, Gladwell encourages us to get back to our roots and actually go out and do something about social issues.
In the last few weeks, the debate between social and passive activism has really hit home for me. Recently, the story of Trayvon Martin has spread across the nation like wildfire. Trayvon was a teenage boy who was shot by a neighbor when he was walking home from the corner store with a hooded jacket. The neighbor claimed he shot him in self-defense, but the only thing Trayvon carried with him was a tea and a bag of skittles. The crime was blatant racism, because Trayvon was African American and the shooter was Caucasian
I have always thought that social media was an excellent channel to spread the word, but now I am wondering if it is affective in actually making a change. For Trayvon, the protest included sending a retweet via Twitter or put a hoodie as your Facebook profile picture. Honestly, what are those two protest methods doing to create justice? Of course, it spreads the word quickly, but what is the purpose if laws aren’t changed.
Social media turns relevant issues into pop culture and slowly diminishes the importance of the issues. People love to follow trends and when people follow the trends and lack passion REAL social causes fall by the wayside.
We stood up for the controversy of Troy Davis, but two weeks later when that social issue fad died down and the Twitter buzz.
What is a protest if two weeks later the people forget about the cause?
No comments:
Post a Comment